' FALAK SHER FAROOQA (MEMBER)--- By this single order, ' I intend to disposed of above mentioned three petitions as common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions.
2. Brief facts of Case No,4A(74)/2013-L (Muhammad Asim Khan) are that the petitioner alleged in his grievance petition that he was employed as Senior Supervisor Sales in the respondents establishment. He performs manual and clerical duties and is workman. He is being victimized and discriminated on account of his lawful trade union activities on the platform of his union namely Employees union SNGPL (Pir Muhammad Group). The respondents asked the petitioner to quit his ' lawful trade union activities from the said union but the petitioner refused to accede to the illegal demand of the respondents. The respondents issued threats of dire-consequences to the petitioner and in order to dispense with the services of the petitioner and as a measure of victimization and discrimination, issued charge sheet dated 10-09-2012 to him, containing false and bogus allegation for tempering the dates on the applications for new gas connections in connivance with local MNA. The petitioner submitted his reply to charge sheet and denied the allegations levelled against him. He has stated that he never changed or tempered any date or committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge, sheet and without affording opportunity of hearing, respondents are tient upon to dismiss the petitioner, from service. In this way the respondents are committing unfair labour practice.
3. Brief facts of Case No,4A(75)/2013-L (Muhammad Rafiq) are that the petitioner has alleged in his grievance petition that he was employed as Senior Supervisor Sales in the respondents establishment. He performs manual and clerical duties and is workman. He is being victimized and discriminated on account , of his lawful trade union activities on the platform of his union namely Employees union- SNGPL (Pir Muhammad Group). The respondents asked the petitioner to quit his lawful trade union activities from the said union but the petitioner refused to accede to the illegal demand of the respondents. The respondents issued threats of dire-consequences to the petitioner and in order to dispense with the services of the petitioner and as a measure of victimization and discrimination issued charge sheet dated 15-10-2012 to him, containing false and bogus allegation of tempering the dates on the applications for new gas connections in connivance with local MNA. The petitioner submitted his reply to charge sheet and denied the allegations levelled against him. He never changed or tempered any date or committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet and without affording opportunity of hearing, respondents are bent upon to dismiss the petitioner from service. In this way the respondents are committing unfair labour practice.
4. Brief facts of Case No,4A(76)/2013-L (Muhammad Rafiq) are that the petitioner has alleged in his grievance petition that he was employed as General Duty Assistant Sales (GDA) in the respondents establishment. He performs manual and clerical duties and is workman. He is being victimized and discriminated on account of his lawful trade union activities on the platform of his union namely Employees union SNGPL (Pir Muhammad Group). The respondents asked the petitioner to quit his lawful trade union activities from the said union but the petitioner refused to accede to the illegal demand of the respondents. The respondents issued threats of dire-consequences to the petitioner and in order to dispense with the services of the petitioner and as a measure of victimization and discrimination issued charge sheet dated 10-09-2012 to him, containing false and bogus allegation of tempering the dates on the applications for new gas connections in connivance with local MNA. The petitioner submitted his reply to charge sheet and denied the allegations levelled against him. He never changed or tempered any date or committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet and without affording opportunity of hearing, respondents are bent upon to dismiss the petitioner from service. In this way the respondents are committing unfair labour practice.
5. These petitions are contested by the respondents by filing three separate written-statements wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the said petitions are taken. On facts it is stated that general and vague allegations have been levelled in these grievance petitions against respondents management. The petitioners are not trade union activist nor they were threatened or restrained to do their trade union activities. The petitioners were involved in tempering the dates on the applications for new gas connections, therefore, they were served charge sheet and inquiry was conducted against them. Petitioners were issued charge sheets on account of misconduct which are explained in show cause notices. Petitioners fully participated in the inquiry proceedings, cross examined the complainant, witnesses of complainant and also admitted their guilt and charge sheets cannot be challenged before this Bench of Commission.
The respondents have not committed any act of unfair labour practice. These petitions are 'misconceived and the assertions made therein are misleading and frivolous.
6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are trade union activist being members of Employees Union (Pir Muhammad Group); that due to their lawful trade union activities they have been victimized as they refused to obey the order of respondents management to quit their trade union activities from the platform of above said union; that the allegations against the petitioners in the charge sheets 'are false and frivolous as the petitioners were not responsible to temper/change the dates of said applications. Infact these applications received from higher authority wherein application numbers along with dates already mentioned were received for the installation of gas meters on the recommendation of MNA/Minister; that on the directions of higher authority, the petitioners have obeyed the order and have not committed tempering or misconduct as alleged in the charge sheets; that even in the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer has not held the petitioner guilty of misconduct and found the petitioners negligence in performing their duties; that on the basis of these finding, the respondents management is bent upon to dispense with services of the petitioners and in this way the respondents have committed unfair labour practice; that petitioners have no other efficacious remedy except filing of these petitions.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has repelled the , arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that serving of charge sheets or holding of inquiry against delinquent employee/workman does not constitute unfair labour practice; that unfair labour practice is specifically defined in section 31(d) of IRA, 2012 but on the face of facts alleged in these petitions, no unfair labour practice on the part of the employer is committed; that against show cause notice or charge sheet, grievance petitions are not maintainable because the same is prerogative of employer to maintain discipline in his establishment; that the worker cannot challenge the same by filing grievance petition and infact is legally bound to contest the same before inquiry officer and lead evidence in support of their versions before inquiry officer; that these petitions are not maintainable, therefore, there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners nor petitioners will suffer any irreparable loss, if they will join the inquiry proceeding and defend themselves before inquiry officer; that the petitioners have right to challenge the final order if the same is passed against them after observing legal formalities.
8. Arguments heard advanced by both the learned counsel at considerable length and record perused available on record carefully.
9. It is submitted that as per charge sheets served against the petitioners, the allegations against all the three petitioners are that they have tempered the dates of applications for installation of new connections of gas meters and issued demand notices out of turn/merit in giving advantage against the cases mentioned in the charge sheets. The petitioners filed written reply to the charge.Sheets, inquiry was conducted by the respondents management as a result final show cause notices have been served against the petitioners and final order has not yet been passed due, to restrained order issued by this Bench of Commission. Serving of show cause notices, charge sheets and holding of inquiry, is prerogative of the employer which cannot be taken away in order to establish unfair labour practice on the part of the employer. The petitioners have to prove the facts mentioned under section 31(1)(d) of the IRA, 2012 which is as under:- ' Section 31. Unfair labour practices on the part of employer.---(1) No employer or trade union of employers and no person acting on behalf of either shall--
(d) dismiss, discharge, remove from employment or transfer or threaten to dismiss, discharge or remove from employment or transfer a workman or injure or threaten to injure him in respect of his employment by reason that the workman;
(i) is or proposes to become, or seeks to persuade any other person to become, a member or officer of a trade union; or
(ii) participates in the promotion, formation or activities of a trade union;
10. Petitioners have taken a plea that due to their trade union activities they are being victimized by the respondents. The petitioners are not office bearers of CBA union and they have claimed themselves members of trade union of Pir Muhammad Group but have not placed on record any document in this regard. Moreover, they have not placed on record or show that alleged trade union is CBA. No specific instance has been mentioned in the grievance petitions in order to prove trade union activities. Mere general and vague allegations have been leveled in these petitions.
11. It has repeatedly been held by the superior courts as well as by this Commission, that issuance of show cause notice or charge sheet does not constitute unfair labor practice on the part of the employer because the same is prerogative of employer to maintain discipline in the establishment and employee can contest the same before inquiry officer and filing of grievance petition by challenging the show cause notice or charge sheet is not maintainable in absence of any unfair labour practice. The petitioner can contest the charge-sheet in accordance with law before inquiry officer and also can lead evidence in their defense.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in reported judgment 2004 SCM R 149 titled Muhammad Younas Khan v. Habib Bank Limited through President and others has held as under:- "----S.0.15(4)---Charge of misappropriation and embezzlement---Challenging charge-sheet at premature stage---Validity---proper course for petitioner would be to contest charge-sheet by leading credible evidence showing that such allegations where false and concocted."
13. For the foregoing reason, I am of the considered opinion that these petitions are meritless which are not maintainable and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record after completion of codal formalities.